[HPforGrownups] Re: "Fidelius" etymology (Was: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory)

[Kemper]

No: HPFGUIDX 163577

> Mike wrote:
> What if Lilygale is right? What if part of the "Fidelius" requirement
> includes the faithfulness/loyalty of the SK to exist for the charm to
> *take hold*? Maybe the "Fidelius" never took, maybe the Potters were
> never hidden, they just thought they were. In fact everyone thought
> they were hidden. PP thought he was revealing the secret to Voldemort
> when in fact he was only revealing an unhidden but not well known
> location of the Potters. Voldemort thought he was receiving SK
> information from PP, how would he tell the difference, he didn't know
> the Potters location beforehand either way.

Kemper now:
IF the Fidelius Charm requires the SK to be loyal, I think there would
be some indication (for Lily if not the others) that the charm didn't
work with regards to Peter's lack of loyalty.  Much like Snape can
tell that a potion has been mixed wrong or Lupin can tell that Harry's
silvery wisps aren't a Patronus.

> Mike continues:
> Dumbledore may have realized that he still knew the Potters location,
> assuming he knew in advance, and attributes this to his belief that
> the Potters' SK, Sirius Black, was not faithful but was instead the
> spy they had all known existed. He did know the Potters had planned
> to employ the "Fidelius" and had planned to use Sirius as SK.

Kemper now:
But a week had past from the time of the Fidelius Charm had been
performed, so Dumbledore would have had a week to respond to 'knowing'
the lack of loyalty of whom he thought to be the SK, Sirius.  That is
of course assuming that Dumbledore knew when the FC was performed.


> > Carol wrote:
> > ... not really arguing with Kemper but trying to understand how
> > the charm works in relation to its name
>
> Mike contradicted:
> Well... I think you are disagreeing with Kemper, Carol, and I think
> you are right. :-) If the "Fidelius" was properly cast and in place,
> then I think your explanation of why and how it was broken is spot
> on.

Kemper now:
I'll go with Carol's statement of not arguing with me which isn't the
same as agreeing with me.  Another example of the subtlety of
language. :-)
What I argued earlier is that the Fidelius Charm does not take into
account the SK's loyalty in order for the charm to take.  Though, like
Steve, I think we all agree that the Charm was broken that night.  We
disagree on the 'how'.

> bboyminn:
>
> Is there something in the Secret Keeper Charm that
> recognises an enemy? Well, yes, that 'something' is
> called 'magic'. It is crystal clear that the greatest
> threat to the Potters is Voldemort and those assisting
> him. The Potter are specifically hiding from Voldemort.
> So, it seems crystal clear who the enemy is from the
> very beginning. And once again, keep in mind that we
> are dealing with 'magic' not 'logic'.

Kemper now:
If a Fidelius Charm could be performed only if an SK was loyal
(loyalty is not intermittent), then, like bboy, I think that a thing
called 'magic' can identify a disloyal prospective SK.  If so, then
the thing called 'magic' would not permit the completion of the charm
for the sake of the Secret Teller(s).

But, again, I think the Charm needs only the faith of the Secret
Teller... it is why we tell a secret to someone.  We have faith in
that person not to tell.

Kemper